DELHI DIOCESAN TRUST ASSOCIATION Vs ASHWANI KUMAR
Bench: DIPAK MISRA,PRAFULLA C. PANT
Case number: C.A. No.-008008-008008 / 2015
Diary number: 23761 / 2014
Advocates: RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL Vs
Page 1
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8008 OF 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 25427 of 2014)
Delhi Diocesan Trust Association … Appellant
Versus
Ashwani Kumar …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Prafulla C. Pant, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated
01.04.2014, passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Page 2
Page 2 of 7
Chandigarh in regular Second Appeal No. 1282 of 2011 (O &
M), whereby said court has dismissed the second appeal.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the papers on record.
4. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/appellant Delhi
Diocesan Trust Association, instituted suit (No.264 of 2004)
for mandatory injunction against the defendant/respondent
with the pleading that the plaintiff is the owner of the land in
question. The land was given to one Anjana Devi (grandmother
of the respondent) in 1971, on license, on payment of Rs.
5,000/- per annum. When Anjana Devi failed to surrender the
possession after the expiry of license, a deed was executed on
06.03.1997, extending the period of license for one more year.
She was using the land as Nursery. When Anjana Devi failed
to deliver possession of the land to the plaintiff, license in her
favour was terminated by getting served a notice on her. The
occupation of the land thereafter, by the respondent (grand
son of Anjana Devi), is unauthorized. As such, the suit was
filed against him by the plaintiff.
Page 3
Page 3 of 7
5. Defendant/respondent contested the suit, and filed his
written statement. In his written statement, the defendant
pleaded that he is tenant over the land in question. He further
pleaded that suit in the present form is not maintainable as
the property lies in urban area and he can be evicted only
under Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act,
1973. He further denied the title of the appellant.
6. The trial court framed necessary issues, recorded the
evidence and after hearing the parties, decreed the suit vide
judgment and order dated 30.07.2008. Aggrieved by said
judgment and decree passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Karnal, the defendant preferred Civil Appeal No. 233
of 2008 before the first appellate court. Said court, vide
judgment and order dated 06.10.2010, allowed the civil
appeal, and reversed the decree passed by the trial court. On
this, second appeal was filed by the plaintiff before the High
Court which was dismissed by the order challenged before us.
7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant argued before
us that the first appellate court has reversed findings of the
Page 4
Page 4 of 7
trial court on the conjectures and surmises holding that the
plaintiff failed to prove his title, and the High Court has erred
in law in upholding the same. It is contended that Anjana Devi
had admitted the title of plaintiff and, as such, the defendant
who is in unauthorized occupation in her place, cannot escape
from dispossession merely by denying the title. It is also
submitted that once the suit is filed by the plaintiff against the
defendant, license if any, automatically stood terminated.
8. In reply to the above, learned counsel for the respondent
pleaded that the respondent is tenant of the land, and his
tenancy cannot be terminated without following the procedure
prescribed under the law. But the defendant failed to show us
any document supporting his case, that he was lessee in the
property. He further failed to show the payment of rent to the
lessor. The Managing Committee to whom he pleads to have
paid the rent, its Manager (PW6) has categorically denied it.
9. Relation between Anjana Devi and the defendant are not
disputed in the pleadings. Papers on record show that Anjana
Devi, when apprehended dispossession, filed a suit for
Page 5
Page 5 of 7
permanent injunction but later withdrew the same, and
appears to have executed a deed on 06.03.1997, whereby one
more year was allowed to her to run nursery of plants on
payment of Rs. 5,000/-. Defendant has not pleaded that lease
was created independently in his favour. The trial court after
going through the evidence on record found that PW-6 Edwin
Jacob to whom the defendant claims to have paid rent has
supported the case of the plaintiff. He (PW-6 Edwin Jacob) has
stated that he had letter of authority (Exhibit P-10) from the
plaintiff/church. He (PW-6) has further stated that defendant
was a licensee in open piece of land, adjoining to residential
complex of the Church and said piece was part of land of the
Church. This witness has further clarified that in the first
round of litigation initiated by grandmother of defendant, after
it was agreed between parties that license shall be renewed for
one more year for Rs.5,000/-, the suit was withdrawn by her.
Not only this, DW-1 Ashwani Kumar himself in
cross-examination admitted that local committee of the
Church stood merged with the plaintiff. As such, plaintiff
Page 6
Page 6 of 7
clearly failed to prove that he was a tenant in the open land as
pleaded by him.
10. On going through the judgment (Annexure P-15) passed
by first appellate court, it reflects that in paragraph 16, said
court has also found that the defendant failed to prove himself
to be statutory tenant as pleaded by him. In the
circumstances, we are of the opinion that the first appellate
court has erred in not accepting the finding of the trial court,
and reversing the same. The High Court has also erred in
ignoring the title of the plaintiff, based on judgment (Exhibit
P-9) passed in Civil Suit No. 66 of 1978 between Haryana
Church Welfare Association and the defendant’s grandmother,
particularly in view of the fact that DW-1 Ashwani Kumar
(defendant) has admitted in the cross examination that the
local church merged with the plaintiff/church.
11. For the reasons as discussed above, we set aside the
judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court and
that of the High Court. The decree passed by the trial court is
restored. The defendant is directed to vacate the land in
Page 7
Page 7 of 7
question within a period of two months from today. Appeal
accordingly stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
……………….....…………J. [Dipak Misra]
.……………….……………J. [Prafulla C. Pant]
New Delhi; September 28, 2015.